The unholy trinity of judicial committees

by Blttex 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Blttex

    If judicial committees have Jehovahs direction and Holy Spirit why must they be made up of three members? Is The Holy Spirit not capable of communicating its wishes to just one person alone? Or is it perhaps to give the appearance of fairness and justice. After-all we wouldn't want some rogue elder to completely disregard the Holy Spirit and forgive some worthless fornicator without the appropriate amount of groveling would we.

  • sd-7

    Well, it maxes out the 2-3 witness rule, for one. On a more practical note, it prevents a tied vote when the decision comes to DF a person. (Or just give 'em reproof.)


  • Blttex

    I always understood the 2-3 witness rule to apply when someone has wronged another person. Not when someone has committed a "gross" sin.

  • dazed but not confused
    dazed but not confused

    I always understood the 2-3 witness rule to apply when someone has wronged another person. Not when someone has committed a "gross" sin.

    If the accused doesn't admit to the "gross sin" and at least 2 others aren't there to "witness" it, then there is a meeting with the accused to entrap them or guilt them into turning themselves in. I've been there. They are sooooo much fun.....

    They can assume all they want that you did something wrong and even have one who witnessed it. But you can and should LIE and DENY everything.

  • notjustyet

    This was one of the things that helped open my eyes. Talked to a near relative, (elder) and asked why would there be times when the 3 elders in a Judicail Meeting not agree with each other as to the decision to me metted out to the person being counseled.

    He said that if 2 of the 3 elders voted to DF a person and the other elder was a hold out for private reproof and no one wanted to budge either way then the 1 elder should make his point and then recant and decide to go with the 2 elders decision.

    I asked how this could happen if Holy Spirit were involved in this decision making process, why would it not be unanimous EVERY time? Did not have a good answer and later told other family members that " He is saying apostate things" Just because I asked questions that he did not have a good answer for he says it was "apostate"

    I also laid out a scenario where a Baptized brother smoked a cigarette and decided that it was wrong and went to the brothers and he recieved private reproof. Same scenario but in addition, some other Jws see him smoking, and spread the info through out the congregation. The brother went to the elders and did not know that anyone else had seen him smoking, but since it was known to the congregation, he was DFd. I asked the Elder relative why would the discipline change from one scenario to another due to who knew about it as it should be solely on the case of the person who smoked, not any other factors as it looked like the disciple metted out was based on who knew what.

    These were just a coupla things that allowed me to start seeing the fact that their is no way that it is anything more than men running thngs.


  • BackseatDevil

    The answer to your question isn't spiritual... so toss out the holy spirit.

    In a judicial committee, the main goal is to find out the condition of the person's heart and the effect that person has on the rest of the congregation. That's it. It has nothing to do with facts or truths or anything else. if it were based on actual information in whatever case you would technically only need ONE elder to review the facts and make a decision.

    If there are only two elders present, they could have two different opinions on a person's heart condition (in the example above one elder could think the smoker should be df'd while the other elder could be a former smoker, knows how difficult it is to quit, and feel the brother should be helped along). The third one is there to prevent that discrepancy from being presented (note, the discrepancy exists, it just cannot be shown). Also, should a person in a judicial committee challenge the elder's decision and there were only two elders present, both elders have to have exactly the same opinion and presentation... and as humans, that's just not going to happen. So the third is needed, again, to maintain continuity.


Share this